zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
Let's say for the sake of argument that they violated their original charter, it still wouldn't give Musk standing to bring the suit.

The charter is not a contract with Musk. He has no more standing than you or I.

>>Aloisi+sI1
If Musk's tens of millions in donations were in reliance on the charter and on statements made by sama, Brockman, etc., there's probably a standing argument there. Musk is very different than you or I -- he's a co-founder of the company and was very involved in its early work. I wouldn't guess that standing would be the issue they'd have trouble with (though I haven't read the complaint).

>>Mattic+sN1
I don't see how being a former co-founder or a donor gives one standing for this.

He has no ownership stake. He isn't a director or member of the organization. The thing he claims is a contract he's party to, isn't.

>>Aloisi+uR1
Not familiar with the US legal system at all, but in my country (France) a contact doesn't need to be signed or even on paper to be a contract. Saying “in exchange for your donation I'll abid to the charter” in front of witness is a contract under certain circumstances, so maybe there's something like this involved.